Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/23/2002 ROctober 23, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 23, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abernathy Mark Strain David Wolfley Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young Russell Budd Paul Midney Frank Fry (Excused) Lindy Adelstein (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt - Community Dev. & Environmental Serv. Susan Murray - Current Planning Marjorie Student - Assistant Attorney Stan Litsinger- Planner Patrick White - Assistant Attorney Don Schneider - Principal Planner, Planning Services Don Scott - Transportation Planning Kay Deselem- Principal Planner, Planning Services Tom Cook - Engineering Director Ross Gochenaur- Planning Services Barbara Bergeson - Environmental Services October 23, 2002 The meeting of the LDC Amendment Cycle was called to order at 5:07 PM Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll Call was taken - a Quorum was established. Susan Murray - Current Planning -stated this meeting is the first of two Public Hearings regarding the second cycle of the fall 2002 Land Development Code Amendments. The second Public Hearing will be held on November 13th, 2002 at 5:05 at the BCC Boardroom. Not being a regular meeting the Panning Commissioners will cover the LDC Summary Sheets with updated versions. Paul' Midney moved to hear Section 3.15.1, Adequate Public Facilities, (page 9 of the handout) from Stan Litsinger first. Seconded Mr. Abernathy. Carried Unanimously 7-0. Mr. Abernathy wanted to ask of Susan Murray 1) At the next meeting they ask for just the Roll Call. Not Roll Call by the Clerk. 2) Many times they ask for prospective absences for the next meeting and they never make it on the Agenda. He indicated Mr. Budd will not be at the next meeting and asked her to reflect that. 3) At the last meeting they discussed their desire to be more pro-active rather than react to items brought forth by the County Staff or other persons. Items were: - oil exploration and Extraction - rules of Immokalee - definitions - such as what to call a Hotel or Condo discussed at a previous meeting of which Mr. Abernathy suggested "transient lodging". Susan responded they are discussing the transient lodging issue at the next workshop. Discussing the other two items can be held as a Workshop. Stan Litsinger - presenting page 137 - Section 3.15.1 - Adequate Public Facilities This amendment is the way they measure concurrency, look at traffic impact, and deal with impact fees and collecting the fees. The original proposal was to go to an immediate checkbook concurrency system but as a policy decision was to delay the checkbook concurrency and stay with the annual update inventory report for determining currency. Other changes were made in the way they measure traffic impacts, the way they collect impact fees, thresholds, analysis, definitions of ASI's and need for Codes. He referred to page 139 of their report. He discussed the change to the 10 months omitting the months of February/March which led to unwise decisions in planning for public facilities. He continued to point out the different changes that were made to this section. The staff addressed the BCC's Workshop on September 27th on page 162 for a process of certification of traffic impact vesting and a development agreement providing for the 2 October 23, 2002 Transportation Director and county staff to gather data sand analysis to build the concurrency management system for future checkbook system and establish vesting. He continued with the highlights of the changes. He stated in this Amendment the BCC made a policy decision "not" to go to checkbook concurrency at this time. Additional data and analysis is needed and will take approximately 6-10 months to gather and meet the criteria. It was noted in the report, the items underlined are new, and what is stricken through is removed. The rest of the text is in the amendment already. Mr. Richardson asked about the Level of Service being changed from 12 months to 10 months. Mr. Scott used the analogy of building for Easter Sunday when Easter Sunday only comes once a year. He stated 99 hours of the year are worse, and what is left over is better than that. Eliminating the two months is about the 250th hour of the year. (249 hours of the year are worse) Mr. Richardson asked which months of the year are then left out for sewer capacity. For sewer capacity you design for need. Mr. Richardson doesn't like the idea of leaving two months out of the year and feels they are reusing the ability of the community to deal with the traffic congestion problems. Mr. Schmitt said it was a policy decision based on the fact that they cannot afford to meet the demand for the two worse months of the year. We live with the congestion for the other two months. Discussion continued concerning the peak flow and hours, growth patterns, and the 100th hour. M. Richardson brought up "The Area of Significant Influence". Mr. Strain discussed the Building Permit issue and paying Impact Fees early. Stan commented on the certificates and the SDP's. The certificates are good for 3 years. Mr. Strain suggested the language be changed for Page 163 Section 3.15.7.3.2.2. Escrow, trust funds and impact fees being paid back was discussed. The trust funds are retained by the Clerk and brought back every year in one lump sum. The monies in escrow can be used. Mr. Midney asked about the 10 month traffic issue again. He wondered whether they are going to vote on the issue or say whether they are in agreement. Mr. Schmitt told the commissioners they are accepting a lower Level of Service during certain days during the two month period. He will have Don present a graph explaining the 100th hour - the two months and how the hours are being used. Don will bring this back on November 7th. October 23, 2002 SPEAKERS: David Ellis - wanted to understand the vesting and vesting policy. His concerns were in paying the impact fees. Once he has paid for his impact fees is he concurrent? Stan answered he receives a certificate at the time of paying the impact fees. As long as the certificate is valid for the 3 years he would be concurrent. Stan stated they have removed the provision for waiver and release. Joe wanted David to know earlier that they have concurrency to continue with their development. Robert Duane - He is a member of DSC and has not seen this amendment. They will have a meeting scheduled soon. His point is the same as David Ellis. Feels they should be able to proceed at their own risk. He would encourage some flexibility to have someone postpone the eventuality of paying the impact fees closer to the time of the impact. Mr. Abemathy expressed to the speakers that if they have questions of staff to discuss the issues in advance. The Commission is there to gather information and make recommendations to the County Commissioners, not to preside over a forum for developers or public and staff, nor answer questions. Mr. Strain expressed 4 points that came out of the discussion: 1) Clean up the language 2) Impact Fees be due upon approval of a threshold point - not "submission" 3) As the input from the public - look at language to address the timeframe for COA's 4) Make sure concerns are taken up with staff Mr. Richardson stated he would like to see further information on the 100th hour. The next issue is of the handout - Section 2.7.3.1 or page 80. Mr. Strain asked about Item 2.7.3.1.1 - Community Character Plan. How is this going to be addressed and does the staff feel it is valid? Susan did address this with Mr. Ron Nino and stated it will stay in and tends to be used as a reference or a guide. She doesn't think it has a lot of teeth in it but it will come back to the LDC process again. Mr. Strain asked about page 81 #4 - last sentence. It addressed "boundaries of certain tracts". Susan said this is mostly concerned with Commercial and Industrial - do not have to identify every residential tract in a PUD. Ron Dino had e-mailed these concerns and Mr. Strain felt they should be addressed. Page 82 - #11 - Historic uses or Land - explained by Don Schneider- Mrs. Young felt "Historic" should be taken out. She felt it was a misuse of language. "Previous use of land" could be used. 4 October 23, 2002 Page 87 - Commercial Development - Kay Diesling addressed the issue - she referred to page 94 - and stated it brought back the original wording in the LDC for PUDs approved prior to October 24, 2001. New regulations are applied after that date. This is a housekeeping issue with no change in regulation and it will be simplified. Marjorie Student - Asst. Attorney stated staff included sub- sections and whole sections that are not being amended at this meeting. Break - 6:40 PM Reconvened - 6:53 PM Mr. Midney did not return. SPEAKERS: Robert Duane - He wanted to let the Commissioners know the committee spent 40 hours reviewing these amendments and recommend the chairman give them a more definitive report. He is not sure their recommendations are getting represented as they would like. He covered several items - Page 81 - #3 - asked that the 1,500 fi be deleted - noted it was taken out. page 82 - #9 - overkill & noted it was updated. Dwight Nadeau - Planning Mgr. - WRA - He addressed Page 82 - Section 2.7.3.1.2.5 - concerning location maps - he discussed the sections and felt there was no need for a 24x36 vicinity map. Don Schneider responded the details identify the property better. Mr. Nadeau did not agree. He felt if it was an issue and could be reduced as long as it has good clarity. Wayne Arnold - he discussed the necessity of legal descriptions for tract boundaries. He does not see the benefit to the public by having a legal description for a generalized tract boundary in the PUDs. They are defined in the site development plan or platting process and are inappropriate and unnecessary. Susan said the County Commissioners wanted specificity with the location to the tracts and relationship to other developments. He feels there is another means of getting the specificity they are looking for. Page 3 - #10 - needed clarification. Pages 10 of the Handout - Deviations were discussed. Ron Nino - his primary issues dealt with the deviations and the need for footprints being applicable to commercial development as it is to the residential development. No such thing as deviations in Collier County. A PUD once adopted is a zoning ordinance. Bob Mulhere - he recalled the BCC accepted the Community Character Plan but did not adopt it. 5 October 23, 2002 He addressed page 2 of the handout #4, #9, & #11. -- He covered the legal descriptions 1,500 feet, maps, impacts, footprints, heights, language and deviations. Mr. Strain summarized: - Closer look at the Community Character Plan - Reconsider another use of specificity in the PUD Master Plan in lieu of legal descriptions - Sunsetting provision - Written comments given - Building Footprint as a need - Language requiring LECD deviations on the Master Plan Discussion followed on Section 2.2.20 -Page 39 of handout- Questions and discussion followed on Pages 50, 51, 54, 57 and 58. SPEAKERS: Dwight Nadeau - Reference Page 52 - bottom of page - Development Standards Indicated these can be added together with other sections on other pages. Page 53 has a typo. Wayne Arnold- Referenced Page 41- first paragraph - needs clarification. He wants to make sure the rules aren't changing as he develops his projects because the County has changed other sections of the LDC. Page 41- another clarification - PUD Monitoring - Page 50 - reference to restructuring PUDs - not sure anything is gained or the practicality of it. Development Table - Page 58 - concerns on "list" - feels not consistent. Vince Baracco - Page 50 - language - too stringent. He had attended the DSC meeting and felt they were taking the concerns of the commission, the staff, and the public, along with the developer to come up with issues everyone can live with. He supports those comments and recommendations. Ron Nino - He agreed with Wayne Arnold's comments with the "list" - he also has concerns. Page 41 - has a problem with the last addition to first paragraph - top of page- same concerns expressed on the need to identify deviations. Susan Murray went through the summary of the other Sections of the Summary Sheet Amendments - Section 1.9.9 An appeals issue was discussed by Patrick White in stating they are not closing off any avenues other than the opportunity to "inadvertently appear before the BCC when the remedy is somewhere else in the structure of regulations". ...... It does not take away the right for someone to public petition. 6 October 23, 2002 Sections 2.2.2.2 -17.3 - Mr. Richardson asked about this issue. This addresses Site planning attempting to do long range planning and how schools are regulated within the zoning districts. Marjorie told the Commission she did some research and found some schools are exempt and some not exempt from zoning in many areas. Mr. Schmitt said schools just "did" in the past and they are trying to remedy the situation by working with the School Board to meet certain planning requirements in the County. A lengthy discussion followed. Marjorie suggested they bring this section back at the next meeting. Section 2.2.3.4.3 - the 6 feet was discussed - it is average and not limited to. No discussion on Sections 2.2.12, 2.2.12.1, 2.2.17. Page 18 - Items #14 and #17 were discussed. Section 2.2.36 - it reads 6 months and the consensus was to change to 12 months. Don Schneider referred to page 69. No discussion on Sections 2.2.6.9, 2.6.9.1, 2.6.9.2. Section 2.6.15 - Discusses Solid Waste and Susan mentioned there may be a conflict with an ordinance, so may not be there at a later date. Section 2.6.30 - Polling places were discussed. No discussion on Sections 2.7.3.1, 2.7.3.4, 2.7.5, 3.2.8.3.14 Section 3.2.4.8 - Lot line adjustments - Patrick White discussed the provision of lot sizes, creation of lots, and platted lots. Sections 3.2.6.4.8, 3.2.6.5.1, 3.2.6.5.8, 3.2.8.2 - Page 105 was referred to - Tom Cook - Engineering Director - addressed asphalt and sidewalks. No discussion on Sections - 3.3.7.1, 3.3.7.1.2, 3.3.7.1.10, 3.3.8, 3.3.8.6, 3.3.10, 3.4.5.1, 3.4.5.1, 3.4.5.1.7, 3.4.5.1.10, 3.4.5.2.2, 3.4.7.1, 3.4.7.1.3- 3.4.7.1.4, 3.4.7.2, 3.4.7.2.1, 3.4.13.5.1, 3.9.7, and 3.13.6. Section 3.13.8 - Barbara Bergeson - Environmental Services - the summary sheet needs to be clarified. When proposed, some language was struck in hopes EAC would support. That change was brought into the record for the Development Services Advisory Committee. Page 136 of the packet addresses the issues. Sections 3.13.8.3 and 3.13.8.2- several words are struck. When going to the full DSA Committee and the summary states "per sub-committee recommendations", Barbara stated she believes the subcommittee approved this section with the changes. Section 3.13.6 -Barbara states it says notification of the property be placed 15 days prior to the public hearing - the EAC suggested to change it to 45 days. No discussion on Sections 3.16.2.1.2.1.7- 3.16.2.1.2.1.10, 3.16.2.1.2.2.1 - 3.16.2.1.2.2.3 and 3.16.2.4.1.1 - 3.16.2.4.1.9. 7 October 23, 2002 Section 5.2.2 - Marjorie said this is a change required by state law. An additional member will be appointed to the Planning Commission by the School Board and Board of County Commissioners in which they will determine whether or not that individual can be a voting or non-voting member. Discussion followed in which Marjorie will report back to the Commission concerning questions asked. Sections 5.2.3.1, 5.13.2.3, 6.3, 6.3 Definitions and Appendix A. Mr. Strain made a recommendation to the BCC to reconsider the whole concept of a Hearing Officer and retain public access. The next meeting will be November 13th, 2002 at 5:05 PM. The Commission will be voting at that meeting. Mr. Abemathy discussed the Agenda for November 7th. One item from Stan Litsinger - Growth Management Plan will be presented no earlier than 1:00 PM. The Addition to the Jail & Parking Garage will be presented no earlier than 2:00 PM. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.